Meetings
 
Agenda Item
Docket No. 16-638
 
Print
RE:
Advisory opinion request concerning family members of Danny Trahan, who is a newly-appointed member of the Louisiana Racing Commission (the "Commission"), holding and applying for owner's licenses issued by the Commission.
Facts:
Danny Trahan was recently appointed to the Louisiana Racing Commission (the "Commission"). Mr. Trahan's daughter, Megi Trahan, has an owner's license and a partnership license that will expire on June 30, 2016. Mr. Trahan's son-in-law, Ryan Robicheaux, has an owner's license that will expire June 30, 2016. Mr. Trahan's brother, Arnold Trahan, has an owner's license that will expire on June 30, 2017. Mr. Trahan's brother-in-law, who is married to Mr. Trahan's sister, Christopher Paul Gautreaux, has an owner's license that will expire on June 30, 2016.
Comments:
In BD 2008-917, the Board rendered an opinion that a member of the Racing Commission may recuse himself from an adjudication involving his son, who was a licensed trainer. The only issue addressed in the opinion is as to a potential 1112 (participation) issue, which was the question asked. The opinion does not address Section 1113.
Law:
R.S. 42:1113B prohibits an appointed member of a board or commission from entering into or being in any way interested in a transaction that is under the supervision or jurisdiction of the board or commission.

R.S. 42:1112B(1) prohibits a public servant from participating in a transaction in which his immediate family member has a substantial economic interest.

R.S. 4:144 provides for the membership of the Louisiana Racing Commission - shall be over 35, possess good moral character, and be a resident of Louisiana for at least 5 years; and shall not be financially interested in a race track or race meeting or directly or indirectly own a racehorse which participates in a race meeting.


R.S. 4:147 provides that the commission shall appoint three stewards.


R.S. 4:150 provides that the Commission may grant, refuse, suspend, or withdraw licenses to horse owners. No license shall be refused to any applicant who is qualified in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by the commission; and no license shall be revoked without just cause. It sets forth the qualifications and conditions for each applicant for a license.


LAC35:III:2115 - The stewards shall inspect all applications and make recommendations to the Commission as to the qualifications of all applicants.


La. Milk Commission v. Louisiana Commission on Governmental Ethics, (La. App. 1 Cir. 1974), 298 So.2d 285 - Three of the six appointed member of the Milk Commission were required to be milk processors and one was required to be a milk producer. The Court enjoined the Board taking action with respect to the members of the Milk Commission as it relates to the qualifications for office which have been prescribed by the Legisalture for membership or on grounds that they own an economic interest in the dairy industry.

Hill v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees, 453 So.2d 558 (La. 1984). Hill was a licensed cosmetologist, co-owner of a beauty salon and a member of the Board of Cosmetology. The enabling statute for the Board of Cosmetology required that "board members 'shall have been' actively engaged for at lease five years prior to their appointment as a cosmetologist or a teacher." Ms. Hill's salon was issued an initial license and then a renewal license. The Court concluded that "the renewal of the shop license, as well as Mrs. Hill's license to practice cosmetology . . . is a routine and mechanical thing. There is no showing that that board is required to vote or otherwise exercise authority with respect to the renewal of the shop licenses and cosmetologist licenses."


Recommendations:
Adopt draft of advisory opinion
Assigned Attorney: Kathleen Allen
 
 
ATTACHMENTS:
Description:
2016-638- Draft Opinion
2016-638- R.S. 4:144
2016-638- R.S. 4:147
2016-638- R.S. 4:150
2016-638- Title 35, Chapter 21
2008-917 - request and advisory opinion
2016-638- Milk Commisson v Commission
2016-638- Hill v Commission